Forum Post: Why Occupy GA and direct democracy failed and where anarchy really shines
Posted 11 years ago on Aug. 12, 2013, 2:27 a.m. EST by dietrichneims
(1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It's an obvious fact, Occupy's implementation of direct democracy and general assemblies failed. There was a lot of infighting, and the numbers of participants kept dwindling. There still are some groups around, but the number of people who attend are miniscule.
The problem is not the idea of general assemblies, direct democracy, or anarchy. It's that there was no real point for the general assemblies. Most decisions that were presented were of no real consequence, and it just felt like a real waste of time.
Anarchy does shine when groups have clearly defined goals stemming from a real project.
Take Linux for example. It's essentially a project based on anarcho-communism. It works because there is a real goal of building an OS that's free and for everybody. This creates a backbone which imparts real goals and paths to the project. There's tons of things to be done, so people are happy when others come to participate. You might say that Linus is the leader because he decides what needs to be merged, but in reality it's consensus that has it that way. If people weren't happy with the decisions made by Linus, they could simply fork the project and start a new version.
Another example is DIY labs popping up all around the world. These are places where people come together to work on various software/hardware projects. Most projects are open-source and invite a type of anarcho-communism.
Anarchy does work, but it needs to be set in the right context. The fact that Linux is now a mature OS proves that you don't need a big company with hierarchy to create complex and beautiful things. The community can get together and make something "big" if they want. You just need to right project to drive it.
Occupy offshoots work quite well. An example is the Rolling Jubilee. Anarchy works in this context because there is a clear goal (that of getting people out of debt).
In fact, Occupy broke up into various offshoots exactly because precise goals and projects were needed to drive anarchy. Having general assemblies which talk about everything and anything does not work.
"Anarchy does shine when groups have clearly defined goals stemming from a real project."
Thats the thing, just like in real life, everyone thinks their project is important. Even if its at the bottom of the priority list, people still feel- as they should- that that project has meaning and decisions pertaining it shouldnt be done with out people having a say.
And then that brings it to another issue of benchmarks- what is allowable for a person or a working group to push through, and what exactly is the type of things that need to be decided democratically.
Lots of confusion yes, but democracy in general is just always messy imo.